oopsla-submission

OOPSLA Submission

OOPSLA accepts new papers into either of two yearly rounds feeding the PACMPL

OOPSLA volume; for the 2026 volume the rounds closed October 10, 2025 and

March 17, 2026, both 11:59:59 PM AoE and explicitly firm, via

oopsla26.hotcrp.com. Before running this audit, confirm which round is

actually open on the current SPLASH track page — as of 2026-07-08 both 2026

rounds had closed and the 2027 Round 1 call was not yet posted (待核实).

The three questions that precede any checklist

1. Which round? A round is a strategic choice, not just a date. Filing in

the earlier round leaves the later round of the same volume available for

a Major-Revision resubmission; filing in the later round pushes any Major

Revision into next year's volume. See oopsla-workflow for the calendar

math.

1. New paper or invited revision? A Major-Revision invitation must come

back as a revision in the designated round, answering the reviewers'

expectation list — never re-filed as a fresh submission. Mixing these up

forfeits reviewer continuity.

1. Is the evidence finished? The two-round model gives reviewers a

revision lever; an evaluation you plan to "complete during review" invites

exactly that lever to be pulled against you.

Format contract (2026 volume)

| Rule | Value | Consequence of violating |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Class options | acmsmall,screen,review,anonymous on acmart | Wrong template reads as non-compliant at triage |

| Initial submission cap | 23 pages, excluding references, required statements, appendices | Over-cap papers risk rejection without review |

| Invited-revision cap | 25 pages, same exclusions | Extra two pages exist to answer reviewers |

| Data-Availability Statement | Required, placed before the references, not counted | Missing statement is an avoidable flag |

| Anonymity | Double-anonymous, multi-stage | Identity leaks void the review contract |

Anonymity sweep beyond the obvious

• Tool and prototype names that are already public: rename or cite in the

third person, and scrub GitHub organization strings from listings.

• The Data-Availability Statement itself must stay anonymous — point to an

anonymized archive, not a lab server whose hostname names your group.

• PDF metadata (pdfinfo shows author fields LaTeX quietly embeds), embedded

figure paths, and acknowledgment stubs left from a prior journal draft.

• Self-citation grammar: "we extended X [12]" de-anonymizes; "this work builds

on X [12]" does not.

Concurrent-submission and prior-work posture

Declare any overlapping manuscript honestly. The dangerous case at OOPSLA is

the sibling-venue loop: a rejected PLDI or POPL version resubmitted with the

same evaluation weaknesses — reviewer pools overlap, and the two-round model

means the same people may see the paper twice within one year. Fix what the

last venue's reviews established before re-entering the family.

Filing-day sequence

T-3 days   Freeze claims; regenerate all numbers from the artifact
T-2 days   Anonymity sweep (text, metadata, statement, supplement)
T-1 day    HotCRP record: title/abstract match PDF, topics, conflicts,
           all authors listed with institutions in the form only
T-0        Upload PDF + supplement; re-download and open both;
           confirm timestamp shows AoE margin, not local-time optimism

Deadlines being firm means the plan needs no heroics on the final night; if

the paper is not assembled at T-3, target the next round instead — with two

rounds a year, the cost of waiting is months, not a year.

Output format

[Round] <target round + deadline, from the live track page>
[Filing type] new submission / invited revision
[Format] pass / fail per contract row above
[Anonymity] clean / leaks found: <list>
[Statement] Data-Availability Statement present and anonymous: yes/no
[Verdict] file now / fix list / wait for next round